Pages

Thursday, August 5, 2010

Kentucky Footprint Find

This footprint find was recently posted on the BFRO website. Much to my pleasure, a photograph was also included. The only scale used was the witness' foot, but at least a picture was taken. Too often, all we get are descriptions, which are too subjective to be of much use for anything.

OBSERVED: Me and another person was walking up a hollow below a hollowfill. The area was very marshy as beavers have been damming up the streams. We came upon an area where the stream split in two. There was a large rock on the "island" and next to it we found an odd looking impression in the mud. It was approximately 14 inches in length and roughly twice as wide as my steel toe boot. I have three photographs of it. One photo shows my boot next to it. I'm not sure if what I saw is anything. But the photos clearly show what looks to me like toes but I could just be wanting to see more than what is actually there. If you want copies of the photos, let me know.

OTHER WITNESSES: 1, we were walking up the stream bed.

OTHER STORIES: There have been other reports in the area. Some though are a bit questionable.

TIME AND CONDITIONS: Early morning, sunny, clear.

ENVIRONMENT: The area was kind of a marsh due to beavers working in the area. We were in a hollow.

Follow-up investigation report by BFRO Investigator Don Adkins:

I spoke with the witness on two separate occasions about his track find. The location where the tracks were found is in a remote area at a natural gas well-drilling site. The area is rough terrain with a heavy forest and many coal mining sites. He emailed me the photos, and I found them to be very interesting. The witness has also heard calls similiar to internet recordings of sasquatch in the past and has reported them to us. This area is close to where Report #26036occurred.

2 comments:

Wow, very cool pic and report. The footprint itself is almost reminiscent of the Laird Meadow Road footprint or the familiar "hourglass" shape footprints at Bluff Creek in the late-'50's-early-'70's. Perhaps those 'Squatches moved East?

Something seems kinda fishy. First, although the boot is partly out of the photo boundary, one can see that the depression is not "twice as wide" as the boot as is claimed--and unless the person's with the book has a huge foot too, I doubt it was 14 inches. Why would he not place an object of known size next to the print when taking the photo. Second, even if his were a real print, why do big foot hunters assume it's a "Bigfoot" print and not just a print of a large person? Third,, was there only ONE print? For a print that deep, one would expect at least traces of others. Last, why would the photographer not have carefully sopped out the water to inspect the depression to see if there were realistic bottom contours, and to retake the photo so that more of it's details could be seen. These things are not just good science, but common sense, and important for maintaining credibility.